You may have heard me say “diversity is perversity,” which is a saying that I borrowed from Dr. Michael Weiner. This is not an attack on ethnic and racial diversity, but rather an attack on multiculturalism and forced diversity, otherwise known as reverse racism. I think it’s great when people with diverse background get along, just not when they are forced to by government, academia, or corporate America.
British P.M David Cameron made headlines recently by demanding an end to multiculturalism. But first, what is multiculturalism?
At one level the term means the appreciation, acceptance or promotion of multiple cultures, applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, usually at the organizational level, e.g. schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities or nations. In this sense multiculturalism approximates to respect for diversity.The term may also describe people who have more than one culture in them (people who grew up with more than one cultural identity, also sometimes called bicultural).
In a political context the term has come to mean the advocacy of extending equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious groups without promoting any specific ethnic, religious, and/or cultural community values as central. Multiculturalism as “cultural mosaic” is often contrasted with the concepts assimilationism and social integration.
In contemporary society, different understandings of the term has resulted in two different and seemingly inconsistent strategies:
- The first focuses on interaction and communication between different cultures. Interactions of cultures provide opportunities for the cultural differences to communicate and interact to create multiculturalism.
- The second centers on diversity and cultural uniqueness. Cultural isolation can protect the uniqueness of the local culture of a nation or area and also contribute to global cultural diversity. The policy “Cultural exception” introduced by France in General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations in 1993 was a precise example of protecting one’s own cultural safety.
Cameron was refering to “state multiculuralism,” which basically means the government promotes multiple cultures. This is done because well-meaning but foolish liberals wanted to make Muslim (and other) immigrants feel welcome in the U.K. This strategy has eroded the British cultural by allowing immigrants to forgo assimilation and keep their native culture completely in tact. In the U.S., we thankfully have immigrants who come here because they want to be part of the American culture. Yes, people keep their cultural traditions, but they also follow U.S. customs and laws.
In Europe, multiculturalism has divided countries upon internal ethnic lines. This is dangerous because it creates cultural instability. Here’s P.M. David Cameron:
Multiculturalism is also a problem in Australia. Apparently they have bureaucrats to enforce multiculturalism:
The Islamic Youth Movement used to meet in Australia’s biggest mosque, the one in Lakemba presided over by Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, for years the Mufti of Australia, despite praising suicide bombers, backing the Hezbollah terrorist group, calling the September 11 attacks “God’s work against oppressors” and saying uncovered Australian girls invited rape.
Among its activities, the IYM published a magazine called Call to Islam, edited by Bilal Khazal.
In it appeared fawning interviews with members of some of the world’s worst terrorist groups, including the one that bombed the World Trade Centre in 1993 and another that killed 58 tourists in Luxor, Egypt.
It even interviewed — and praised — al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden, who’d already declared war on the West and was planning his September 11 attacks on the United States.
It also published articles by extremists such as its translator, Keysar Trad, now head of the Islamic Friendship Association, who wrote: “The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country, and now, they only take the select choice of other societies, and the descendants of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us.”
Now here’s how our government-funded prophets of multiculturalism and their fellow travellers dealt with this hotbed of imported hate and us-against-them separatism.
Khazal’s youth movement was not punished (at first), but given three government grants. Two were multicultural grants totalling nearly $7000 from the NSW Government, to teach its supporters not English but Arabic.
The other was a federal work-for-the-dole grant to spruce up its office and arrange its library of propaganda.
How perfectly multicultural. Here were our multicultural commissars, so broad-minded, encouraging young Muslim Australians to keep their distance, speak Arabic, loathe their new home and recruit others for their jihad.
So tolerant of us. So insane.
Nor did it end there. Hilali himself benefited from the political carpetbaggers who exploited the vote-trading possibilities that multiculturalism inevitably encouraged, with its doling out of cash to favourite ethnic “spokesmen”.
In 1985, the Hawke government’s immigration minister, Chris Hurford, finally decided Hilali, here from
Egypt on a visitor’s visa, had outstayed his welcome. He ordered the bigot thrown out.
But Paul Keating and Leo McLeay, Labor MPs representing the electorates where Hilali’s followers were most numerous, lobbied hard for a permanent visa for this hatemonger, and Hurford was overruled.
Nor was that the first favour done Hilali. In 2001, SBS, the multicultural broadcaster, filmed him in his mosque praising suicide bombers as “heroes” days before September 11.
Then came the terror attacks, and rather than show Australians proof that the ideology that had just killed 2985 people, including 10 Australians, was shared in at least part by our most prominent Muslim cleric, SBS destroyed the tape.
It would give us the “wrong idea”, it claimed. Which actually means the “right idea” — about Hilali, Islam in Australia and the multicultural project of which SBS is a beneficiary.
Hilali thrived, and four years later won the greatest honour multicultural politics could deliver, ironically from one of the policy’s greatest critics, prime minister John Howard.
Having preached separatism for so long, Hilali was one of 14 Muslims picked to advise the prime minister directly on how to deal with the very problem he himself had helped make worse.
Howard quickly regretted what he’d done, especially after learning a full third of his advisers, nominated by multicultural experts, were supporters of Hezbollah, listed by his own government as a terrorist organisation.
In almost every detail of this example you see the madness of our multiculturalism, and that suicidal accommodation by government agencies with hostile values they should resist.
This is exactly the approach Cameron now rejects — letting in hate-preachers, defending them, rewarding them, and giving them platforms to advance values at fundamental odds with those that have made this country so free, stable and cohesive.
It’s taken Muslim immigration to break multiculturalism here as it has in both Britain and Germany, where the Chancellor, Angela Merkel, three months ago declared the policy had “failed, utterly failed”.
Our governments’ most fundamental duty is not to keep a community divided into tribes, but to defend the shared values that are our only hope of making a one out of many.
So how about a little more loving for the things that unite us, whether it’s our history, symbols, institutions or traditional values?
And how about saying to the ideologues who reject them to do so on their own dime, not ours?
Time we woke up. To spend public money to create a nation of tribes is the great experiment that has failed — because it’s succeeded only too well.
Let’s hope we don’t fall for the “multiculturalism” trap in the U.S., although I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama appoints a multiculturalism czar to oversee government support for diversity measures.
Diversity is perversity.